COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 80621
CITY OF LAKEWOOD              :
                              :
          Plaintiff-appellee  :
                              :          JOURNAL ENTRY
     vs.                      :               and
                              :             OPINION
CARL E. DIETZ                 :
                              :
          Defendant-appellant :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    AUGUST 29, 2002
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING       :    Criminal appeal from
                              :    Lakewood Municipal Court
                              :    Case No. 01C 3019
JUDGMENT                      :    DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellee:       THOMAS J. WAGNER
                              Chief Prosecutor
                              City of Lakewood
                              12650 Detroit Avenue
                              Lakewood, Ohio  44107
For defendant-appellant:      ROBERT L. TOBIK
                              Cuyahoga County Public Defender
                              DARIN THOMPSON, Assistant
                              1200 West Third Street, N.W.
                              100 Lakeside Place
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44ll3-7583
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.:
     Appellant Carl  E.  Dietz appeals  from his  conviction  for
driving under  the  influence of  alcohol  in violation  of  R.C.
                               -2-
4511.19. Dietz was charged with driving while under the influence
of alcohol  and operating a vehicle  with a suspended license  in
violation of section 335.07(E) of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances.
The case proceeded  to a jury trial,  after which the jury  found
Dietz guilty of both charges.  The court orally pronounced sentence
on both charges.  However, the record includes a judgment only as
to the charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol.
     Crim.R. 32(C) provides that  [a] judgment of conviction shall
set forth the plea, the verdict or findings, and the sentence.   We
have previously held that  the provisions of Criminal Rule  32(B)
[now Crim.R. 32(C)] impose on a trial court a mandatory duty to set
forth the  verdict or its  findings as to  each and every  charge
prosecuted against an accused,  and failure to do so renders  the
judgment substantively deficient under the rule.  In [the] absence
of a signed journal entry reflecting the court's ruling as to each
charge, the order of the trial court is interlocutory.   State v.
Brown(1989), 59 Ohio App.3d 1, 2; also see Cleveland v. Duckworth
(Jan. 24, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 79658; State v. Collins  (Oct.
18, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79064.
     The record does not demonstrate that the trial court disposed
of all the charges against appellant.  Therefore, it has not issued
a final appealable order.
     Appeal dismissed.
                               -3-
     This cause is dismissed.
     It is, therefore, considered  that said appellee recover  of
said appellant its costs herein.
     It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to
carry this judgment into execution.
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the  mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                                        PRESIDING JUDGE
                                        KENNETH A. ROCCO
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J. and
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.,     CONCUR
N.B.  This entry is an announcement of the court's decision.  See
App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22.  This decision will
be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court
pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with
supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days
of the announcement of the court's decision.  The time period for
review by the Supreme Court of  Ohio shall begin to run upon  the
journalization of  this court's announcement  of decision by  the
clerk  per App.R.  22(E).   See, also,  S.Ct.Prac.R. II,  Section
2(A)(1).
 
.